According to this post, 65 out of 67 spree killers who used firearms for their murder weapon were mentally ill. And yet so many people are attacking citizens who own firearms. Attack the real problem -- mental illness.
The only way to do that is extensive interrogation, which gun loons find unconstitutional. I'm all for mental evaluations before one can buy a gun. Will you support such legislation?
If you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.
You dodged the question. I also agree that, "I agree that mental health services with privacy guarantees need to be more widely available" but what I asked is if Truth is correct that, " Attack the real problem -- mental illness" would you support legislation to require mental evaluations before a gun purchase?
I did answer your question, but I'll answer it again and in more detail. No, mental evaluations should not happen before a gun is purchased. If someone has been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, that person's name should be in the background check system as a no-go, but that's it.
Thanks for the answer. My reply then remains the same:
If you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.
And obviously you do not care to act on what you agree is a problem, mental health.
One can agree on where the problem lies, but that doesn't mean they agree with your solutions. 1) will screening actually work? Do mental health professionals possess psychic ability to identify a mentally unstable person in a sea of thousands of perfectly sane prospective gun buyers based on a half hour cold interview? 2) is it an acceptable burden? How long will one half to wait to get their screen down when there are tens of millions of people making appointments? Years? Decades? 3) what are the unintended consequences of directing mental healthcare resources away from the mentally ill, and instead to screening tens of millions of sane people?
You can't assume everyone will agree that your idea is a good idea.
Greg can't make up his mind whether he believes mental health is a problem or not.
In the same way people should have to pass a written and practical test for gun ownership, they should also have an eye exam and a psychological screening. Gun nuts pretend that something like that is so onerous that it's not practical, but that's just an excuse to not do it.
Greg doesn't agree that mental health is the problem as Truth stated, fine. We have a process that handles even more car owners. It can be done. We can never stop the supposed normal person, that just snaps, but we could stop the ones who have a history, or are obviously sick. Now, we don't have a process to stop even the obviously sick from buying a gun. Background checks would help, if those checks include checking those with previous mental problems. There is no process that will catch/stop 100%, but I disagree that is a reason to not try. Maybe we could catch 85%, that would save many lives.
1. even the most cursory screening will catch the worst of the worst. 2. For a start, I'd have the mental health screening requirement apply only to new applicants. 3. same answer.
1) how do you know that? What is your experience that leads you to believe a psychologists can talk to someone briefly and tell they are crazy? This is a cold interview- no history to go on.
2) does everybody need a license, or just new gun owners? It's is still the difference between millions of people and tens of millions.
3) every minute a health care professional spends interviewing sane people is taken out of time where they could have been treating sick people. You're cool with taking care away from those who need it?
Anon, if you are talking about identifying those with a history, that's a different discussion (and much more workable). Mike wants to make a history where there is none.
New laws usually do spur employment. Yes, we will need more health professionals to meet the requirement, or at least clerks to check background files.
I wish you could read simple bar charts. The 14 already in only 4 years 2010 - 2013 is on pace with the 1990s. Of course you think what happened in 2012 was just an anomaly, I suppose.
According to this post, 65 out of 67 spree killers who used firearms for their murder weapon were mentally ill. And yet so many people are attacking citizens who own firearms. Attack the real problem -- mental illness.
ReplyDelete-- TruthBeTold
The only way to do that is extensive interrogation, which gun loons find unconstitutional. I'm all for mental evaluations before one can buy a gun. Will you support such legislation?
DeleteNo. Any violation of one person's rights is a violation of everyone's rights.
DeleteIf you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.
DeleteI agree that mental health services with privacy guarantees need to be more widely available.
DeleteThere needs to be a mental health evaluation prior to the granting of a gun owner's licence. What could be more obvious?
DeleteObvious things. What you want isn't obvious at all:
Delete1. There shouldn't be a license just to own a gun, and in most states, there isn't such a thing.
2. As I've asked you many times before, given the number of gun owners in this country, is this your idea of a jobs program?
You dodged the question. I also agree that, "I agree that mental health services with privacy guarantees need to be more widely available" but what I asked is if Truth is correct that, " Attack the real problem -- mental illness" would you support legislation to require mental evaluations before a gun purchase?
DeleteI did answer your question, but I'll answer it again and in more detail. No, mental evaluations should not happen before a gun is purchased. If someone has been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, that person's name should be in the background check system as a no-go, but that's it.
DeleteThanks for the answer. My reply then remains the same:
DeleteIf you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.
And obviously you do not care to act on what you agree is a problem, mental health.
I don't see mental illness as a major problem, certainly not one to be addressed with the proposals that Mikeb offers.
Delete"I don't see mental illness as a major problem, certainly not one to be addressed with the proposals that Mikeb offers."
DeleteOh, so you do not agree with Truth, that mental illness is the real problem, OK.
One can agree on where the problem lies, but that doesn't mean they agree with your solutions. 1) will screening actually work? Do mental health professionals possess psychic ability to identify a mentally unstable person in a sea of thousands of perfectly sane prospective gun buyers based on a half hour cold interview? 2) is it an acceptable burden? How long will one half to wait to get their screen down when there are tens of millions of people making appointments? Years? Decades? 3) what are the unintended consequences of directing mental healthcare resources away from the mentally ill, and instead to screening tens of millions of sane people?
DeleteYou can't assume everyone will agree that your idea is a good idea.
Greg can't make up his mind whether he believes mental health is a problem or not.
DeleteIn the same way people should have to pass a written and practical test for gun ownership, they should also have an eye exam and a psychological screening. Gun nuts pretend that something like that is so onerous that it's not practical, but that's just an excuse to not do it.
Can you address the three points I made above?
DeleteGreg doesn't agree that mental health is the problem as Truth stated, fine.
DeleteWe have a process that handles even more car owners. It can be done.
We can never stop the supposed normal person, that just snaps, but we could stop the ones who have a history, or are obviously sick. Now, we don't have a process to stop even the obviously sick from buying a gun. Background checks would help, if those checks include checking those with previous mental problems. There is no process that will catch/stop 100%, but I disagree that is a reason to not try. Maybe we could catch 85%, that would save many lives.
1. even the most cursory screening will catch the worst of the worst.
Delete2. For a start, I'd have the mental health screening requirement apply only to new applicants.
3. same answer.
1) how do you know that? What is your experience that leads you to believe a psychologists can talk to someone briefly and tell they are crazy? This is a cold interview- no history to go on.
Delete2) does everybody need a license, or just new gun owners? It's is still the difference between millions of people and tens of millions.
3) every minute a health care professional spends interviewing sane people is taken out of time where they could have been treating sick people. You're cool with taking care away from those who need it?
Anon, if you are talking about identifying those with a history, that's a different discussion (and much more workable). Mike wants to make a history where there is none.
DeleteNew laws usually do spur employment. Yes, we will need more health professionals to meet the requirement, or at least clerks to check background files.
DeleteI wish your side would learn how to read data. There's a spike in the 90s and then a decline. That's while the U.S. population has been rising.
ReplyDeleteI wish you could read simple bar charts. The 14 already in only 4 years 2010 - 2013 is on pace with the 1990s. Of course you think what happened in 2012 was just an anomaly, I suppose.
DeleteBut you see, I know enough about data and statistics to realize that "simple bar charts" cannot be understood by simple minds.
DeleteCute dodge.
DeleteIt's not a dodge. You use sloppy methods to reach erroneous conclusions. I'm not dodging when I refuse to use the same methods.
DeleteSure Greg. Keep pretending the decade starting in 2010 is not off to a helluva start.
Delete